jaikaara

I think maybe they meant to quote me...

Guest Ji - agree 100% with you. And the Sikhs I associate with in real life in person also would agree.   But I think you will find on this forum majority will disagree and will uphold those issues I mentioned. So when I said I want to see these things in Sikhi what I mean is I know these principles are basic in Sikhi... Equality etc are basic tenets of Sikhi.......but not all Sikhs are upholding them - and you will find on here especially, many who fall into that category and will use tons of excuses to try to justify their stance on those above 3 issues I mentioned - and a favourite word they use in their argument against gender equality is 'nasty western feminism' lol ...... Ironic when Guru Nanak Dev Ji advocated for equality of gender (along with caste etc) making him a feminist lol

Ok thanks for all that.

Umm still a bit confused ... Jaikaara : you gave  quote above but didn't mention where is came from. Can I have the reference please.

"Sikhs gave their lives for cows " - I'm a bit confused as to how far the relationship of the cow is in Sikhism. One one had God is in everyone - so why give more importance to a cow then a human being - doesn't make sense - you would kill a human to protect a cow. Unless like Hinus the belief was that cows are somehow divine. 

And does this mean again that Sikhism is fundamentally an India religion, that can't shake off its cultural tires with India. For instance if Sikhism had spread to an Arab country, there are no cows in the desert. They use Camels for Meat, Milk, travel, Clothes, trade etc. Would Sikhs then give the same value to Camels as they do cows. Or horses in Eastern Turkey - each geographical area has its own Animal of choice.

Also I can appreciate that Sikhs and Hindu due to their own religious beliefs hold the cow scared - but when that belief is imposed on others others that don't hold that belief - isn't that religious intolerance / oppression ? I though Guru Nanak was against forcing your beliefs on anther people ? a bit confused.  

Just wondering, what is the source of Uggardanti? Not existent in Dasam Granth from cursory googling. Not that it invalidates the tukhs you cited, but just kind of curious on a tangent

I think there are a couple aspects to look at here.

First off, without doubt, Sikhs traditionally did not consume beef. Goat and pork were the main delicacies, but beef was a no-no. Ranjit Singh banned beef slaughter throughout the empire, and many British sources noted how the Sikh Sardars detested beef as much as smoking. I also thought I read somewhere that Ratan Singh Bhangoo included an episode in Lahore where Singh's see a butcher taking a cow out to slaughter and put him to sword, although I can't find that now via control+f of my copy of the work (which is this, by the way. I hope it's accurate?-http://sikhinstitute.org/gpp_v1.pdf)

In terms of the contemporary, Nihangs specifically have an injunction against beef. I know that Namdharis, a pacifist Sikh "sect" of sorts, go crazy about cows. They broke their pacifism to kill beef butchers in Malerkotla. 

The more difficult question to ascertain is what does Sikh philosophy teach about beef. From my reading of Guru Granth Sahib and vaaran, very little to actually suggest this. Guru Nanak criticized the Brahmin practice of applying cow dung. Bhai Gurdas also wrote this: 

"

dhaekh paraaeeaaa(n) cha(n)geeaaa(n) maavaa(n) bhainaa dhheeaaa(n) jaanai||

The Sikh ought to treat beautiful women of others as his mothers, sisters and daughters.

ous sooar ous gaae hai par dhhan hi(n)dhoo musalamaanai||

Others’ wealth for his is as beef for Hindu and pork for a Muslim.

" 

 

corroborated by folks such as Bhangoo, which suggests the religious taboo for Sikhs equivalent to that for Hindus+beef is more like adultery/thievery than dietary restrictions.

 

Why were ancient Sikhs so apprehensive of cow-meat then? Very obvious reason, and that's that the cow is just a culturally respected animal. I personally eat beef (non-halal of course) but none of my family in India does-my father tells me that on his first time eating a burger, he felt very odd about it considering how he thought of cows in his childhood. And it wasn't that there was a heightened sacredness or anything of the sort for him. It was just...cows were considered man's best friend just like dogs or horses in the West, so why kill them for taste? They have a ton of value anyway outside of beef, such as milk and labor. 

 

I openly admit that, yes, I eat beef. Why? I think times have changed, and while I consider myself a Punjabi Sikh and align with that heritage, I don't personally care about dead cows as much as my ancestors did. I haven't found a compelling reason within Sikh philosophy or even codes of conduct to do so (although I do expect if I take Amrit I'll prob stop eating beef anyway as I'll focus on hunting for meat instead of store-bought). Finally, I think some of the stuff surrounding the sacredness of the cow just is sort of ajeeb to me (again, my personal views)-the fixation on cow urine and dung, valuing a farm animal's life more than a human's (Banda Bairagi's discussion with Guru Gobind Singh comes to mind), the fact that buffaloes aren't valued at all and are even sometimes ritually slaughtered, and so on. I do admit, it is always funny how Westerners who will sign petitions online to "STOP the EVIL practice of eating dogs in Korea," yet mock and lament contemporary Hindus+Desis for being "cow-worshippers."

Sorry if there was a lot of my personal thoughts and not enough source material for you. 

It's a small community here. Maybe 100 or so regulars and of those many are older aunties etc and the younger ones are more students who don't have extra time.  The youngest kids many can't speak Punjabi themselves.

 

So I am stuck with books on Punjabi which are usually just the alphabet and a word for each letter.  Doesn't matter how many times I look at the alphabet it won't help me understand what someone says... It would be like trying to learn English and all you can find is:

A - Apple B - Bat C - cat with a photo of a cat an apple and a bat.  See my point (look at the attached photo - THIS is what I was given when I asked someone at the Gurdwara about learning Punjabi - there is no sentence structure, no vocabulary beyond one word for each letter, no conversational things like common phrases, no verb conjugations etc)? 

What else he will say

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHwIitu4Sg

 

Look at above video , he was thrown by people and he did not say a word. If he was in sober condition then he would have fought very hard

There is n 3HO here and I am not into yoga lol or wearing all white... my sangat here are all Punjabi but they follow Sikh Rehet Maryada and nobody is limited from doing anything. I am in fact on the Gurdwara Management Committee here locally - as a Gori - at a nearly all Punjabi Gurdwara.  I dont have any desire to abandon these people nor adopt a yoga / Sikhi hybrid.  I don't think there is anything wrong with doing yoga... but I just wouldn't feel comfortable mixing it with kirtan, ardas etc.  And I like to wear colourful suits :)And I thought ridding ourselves of duality IS positive... how can it be at all negative??

 

 

 

Not arguing... I think what's best for me is to stick with like minded Sikhs or else I will only go backward into more duality. Right now, I see everyone on equal level. Its why I help anyone I can in real life and why I fight for equality and stand up for injustice and I am not afraid to do so. The only context of the word "can't" that I know is:
I CAN'T go back to toward duality when I am trying to surpass it completely. I would just be hindering my own progress.  All else, there is no "can't" The only limitations are the limitations we ourselves as humans set.  You might not understand because you are on the side of privilege in the male vs female debate so you will never ever be negatively affected.  You will never be told you "can't" do something.  All seva is open to you, all leadership positions are open to you.  You never have to feel left out of anything as far as Sikhi goes, no matter what jatha or sect you visit.  Just please never ever take that for granted bcause others don't have that privilege.  For me, I have to stay with like minded Sikhs in order to be able to fully participate.

I wish you well.

I guess what I find difficult with *some* sects in Sikhism is that Sikhi is supposed to be about ^^^^that  ONLY Akaaall ---- 

There is only ONE in existence and that ONE IS ALL.  ALL IS that ONE.  To me, duality is not the way to find that ONE. To me, the way to find that ONEness is to practice ONEness in daily life.  I guess that's where I have trouble seeing how traditional Indic customs of placing restrictions on one gender, while giving the other gender full privileges, to me that is causing more duality, reinforcing more separateness... " you look different than me therefore I'll give you less opportunities" kind of thing.  When I strive to look for ONEness and inclusiveness to break that duality, it seems like these sects put up roadblocks that instead reinforce duality by trying to tell me over and over "YOU can't because you are female and I CAN because I am male"  when what I see is there is no you and I.  There is only Akaal Purakh.  I see only that light within each person, and not the temporary gender.  In my whole life I have never imagined telling a guy that I will disallow him to do something because he is a male.  I kind of giggle about the Mother thing... because a male can be just as much a parent, participate just as much in raising a child.  Who carries and gives birth is meaningless... or else adoptive parents would never have a bond with their adopted children.  It's not who gives birth, but who actually raises a child that is their parents.  Men and women can both do that equally.  But it's participation in the religion itself... it's when you read something which says to see ALL with single eye of equality and that the divine light is equally in ALL, but then you have adherents who practice it totally differently - to the point they tell me the way I have been practicing it is wrong - and that this way which only perpetuates more duality doesn't make sense to me.  The ultimate truth is ONEness.  Not male and female.  The ultimate truth is ONE.  not two (genders or otherwise).  So I get a bit frustrated when Singhs wish to create more duality by telling me "You CAN'T because you ARE female"  I am not female... I a soul who is genderless who is temporarily inhabiting a female gendered body.  My soul is the exact same as yours, so in matters relating to religion, we should be equally treated.  Those who say "no WOMAN gave her head that day as an excuse..." I see NO WOMAN, I see NO MAN.  I only see separate instances of the ONE same light.  My intention is not cause any insult. I am trying to show people this reality.... but I feel I am being dragged back into duality more... Is Sikhi about creating more duality....did I miss something?  I thought Sikhi was about REMOVING duality! 

 

Do you know even what slander means Jaikara?  Slander per dictionary definition is a false SPOKEN statement designed to publicly degrade. 

First of all... everything here is typed not spoken, so if it was written and still designed to degrade, it would be libel.  However nothing I brought up has been a false statement designed to degrade.  The concerns I brought up about the Damdami Taksal Rehet Maryada, I directly quote them, and then point out the concerns using Gurbani to back it up.  So that means 2) It was not a false statement (I provide screenshots) and 3) It was not by design made to degrade anything.... being concerned about inconsistencies in something is not the same as degrading something.

Second, taking one Gurbani tuk out of context and using it to make the statement that women must bow down to men as Gods over them, very much IS by design constructing a statement designed to degrade. 1) It is a false statement because the tuk actually refers to something completely different which has nothing at all to do with human female wives and seeing human male husbands as God  2) By design it very much IS intended to degrade... women and it also is degrading to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to make the false statement that it looks down upon females when in reality it does not. 

Therefore, several of you are FAR more guilty of LIBEL not slander than am I.  And finally, in a court of law, libel / slander must be proven that it actually DID cause defamation of character to the recipient.  If it did not, then there was no slander / libel.  

If nobody is allowed to point out any inconsistencies in any Jathas even using Gurbani to back it up, then Sikhism has a serious problem.   Also, any rules of the above should also (if not more) be applicable to Akal Takht's Rehet Maryada printed by SGPC since it's the recognized Rehet Maryada... not any Jathas ones.  However you seem to be ok with slaner / libel of SRM?? Since you have not spoken against it at all on here.